On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Christian Schulte <c...@schulte.it> wrote:
> Am 08/24/16 um 00:08 schrieb Paul Benedict: > > POM and a future major version POM? I am hinting at a strategy for > forward > > compatibility. > > Is forward compatibility really needed/required? > I honestly don't know, which is why I am asking. An answer of "no compatibility" is possible, too. I can completely see the argument that says POMs must be all-parseable-or-nothing -- for the sake of reproducibility. I actually prefer this answer. I think it is sensible to fail a build when encountering a POM version too advanced. If your client only supports up to model 4.0.0, then all artifacts must be specified by 4.0.0 models, too. On the other hand, I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to the opposite argument. At least one person spoke up and said it's unacceptable to fail a build on configuration you don't understand. Well, that's an interesting argument, too. That person doesn't want to tank the build for the 1% of configuration that can't be understood.... but I fail to see an escape hatch here. If a client can't understand what's being specified, then what else can be done but fail? Cheers, Paul
